What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 161 to 170 of 258
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 06:06 AM #161
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 06:13 AM #162
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 06:46 AM #163
Magsman (Lvl 14)
And as far as editions go, 2e, 3e, and 4e all tried to branch out. Let's keep that up. Each edition evolves the scope or nature of the game, or tries to. So, why change what D&D is "about"? It's how it usually works.
And then, you know, expand those fields some more. In my RPG, there's really only one completely combat-based skill (Martial Prowess), and it takes up one page. The Skill chapter is 54 pages long (longest chapter in the book), and Combat is 34 pages (which includes 5 pages on mass combat and 12 on martial maneuvers). Then there's another 21 pages later on about handling weather, fire, poisons, drinking, and so on. Then another 17 pages in Chapter 1 for a background generator, status, calling in favors, fame, income, gaining possessions, reputations, etc. Then another 9 pages on crafting items not covered in the book, pricing them, determining DCs, adding features, etc. That's essentially 101 pages vs 34 pages when it comes to combat vs. non-combat (not getting into listed equipment, magic, traits, special abilities, and the like). When it comes to feats, out of the 11 categories of feats, 6 are combat-based, and 5 aren't (though some are useful in combat, and some combat feats are useful out of combat); that chapter is 24 pages long, so with an uneven split of 8 non-combat and 16 combat, the total is still looking like it's 109 non-combat to 50 combat (well, 107 to 52 if you move the Martial Prowess and Tactics skills over).
I'm not saying that non-combat needs to dominate the game, or be anywhere near as long as my stuff, but we can definitely expand upon it in 5e. There's a lot of room to grow.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-hor...design-5e.html. Go ahead and look up the back and forth that I had in this thread to get a feel of my feelings on it (the 3/3/3 default and specialization, optional opt-out of 3/3/3, potential combat and non-combat siloing, etc.).
As always, play what you like
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 07:16 AM #164
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
This thread is making me sad.
D&D is not just about combat. D&D has never been just about combat, in any edition, from 0e to 4e. It's a ridiculous claim to make about any edition, much less all of them.
Yes, combat is important. Crucial, even, when monsters, treasure, and the taking of the latter from the former are involved. Magic weapons are highly desirable. Magic missile and fireball are iconic. There's even a class called the "fighter" and he's useless outside of a tangle.
But that's not all it's about, and I still don't get that argument.
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 07:49 AM #165
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Combat is central to D&D. This is nearly unavoidable. Yes, adventure, yes this, yes, that, but at the end of the day there's almost always fighting at least once a session. That's a lot more than in most game systems.
So what you're saying is that EVERY SINGLE combat character should miss out on roleplaying opportunities for the sake of a VERY SMALL number of people who want to play a total combat incompetent.
Lets turn this around. Why not make it so that everyone has the same roleplaying opportunities that are open to the combat incompetent character? Then if you want to make your character combat incompetent, just use those abilities and ignore the combat abilities you should be getting from your class. Then you're a combat incompetent with all the roleplaying opportunities you want. Isn't that the better solution?
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 08:29 AM #166
And again you make a clear distinction between combat and role playing. Why can't combat not be part of role playing? Why does it have to be a special snowflake everyone must have/so by design?
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 09:12 AM #167
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
A: good at combat and good at roleplaying
B: good at combat and poor at roleplaying
I think what's being asked for is more of a trade-off; that if someone wants to be poor at combat they'll somewhat default into being good at non-combat by virtue of the game design. Someone could be passable but not expert at both, but in theory could not be good at both nor be poor at both.
The whole problem arises from trying to have too much mechanical representation of differences between characters and letting that stand in place of roleplaying a personality and showing the differences that way.
Lan-"sometimes rules-light is the way to go"-efan
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *DM: Telenet 1984-1994, Riveria 1995-2007, Decast 2008 -->* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 10:09 AM #168
Magsman (Lvl 14)
If you read the thread and my interactions, let me know what you think of them.
Sure, start with 3/3/3 and competence in every pillar. That's awesome, and I support that assumption. Just make a clear, supported, optional opt-out. You know, so you don't kill roleplaying opportunities.
Seriously, this is all in the thread I linked. I've discussed this, and answered this question, in that thread. I've talked about what I'd like to see, why I'd like to see it, and how I'd like to see it implemented. I even agreed to a compromise in that thread that seemed to make both sides happy. If you want to spend an hour pouring over it, it might speed the discussion up (for convenience's sake, here's the link again, with the page where I start posting more often: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-hor...sign-5e-4.html). As always, play what you like
Last edited by JamesonCourage; Tuesday, 9th October, 2012 at 10:12 AM.
As always, play what you like
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 11:00 AM #169
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Plus there is no mechanic for using a performance to please people.
Which also drives home that, in 4e, there is a way to bring out my bard's skilled mandolin playing: use that to narrate Words of Friendship, and thereby to make a Diplomacy check without having to actually speak to someone.
There are some RPGs I know of that treat non-combat and combat action resolution as basically in terms of action resolution and PC build mechanics: HeroWars/Quest; Maelstrom Storytelling; The Dying Earth; The World, the Flesh and the Devil; and other indie RPGs.
D&D in any edition has not been such a game. All PCs get level-based attack bonuses and hit points. The bulk of the action resolution mechanics are framed by reference to combat situations (and this is true even in classic D&D, despite the odd protestation to the contrary - in B/X, for example, reaction rolls are clearly framed in terms of negotiations between potential belligerents, and other non-combat action resolution is confined to movement rules, opening doors, and searching for traps and secret doors). The only edition of D&D with conflict resolution mechanics for social situations is 4e, and it has a wide range of utility powers to support that mechanic.
It's a feature of the game.
You can modulate your degree of combat proficiency in any edition - but I don't think it supports the game to allow PCs to be built that bring no combat proficiency to the table. (Of coures that might be metagame proficiency, like a lazy warlord.)
For example, there are no cross-cut augment mechanics that allow the alchemist, beavering away in his/her tower, to generate metagame buffs to the warrior's fight. And there aren't even aid another mechanics that allow the alchemist to make a check that would produce an ingame aid to the warrior's fight - it's all mediated via complex item creation and crafting rules, that militate against rather than facilitate party play. (Contrast Burning Wheel's linked test rules!)
There are no rules (other than the Sanctuary spell - an odd spell, give that clerics are pretty buff in combat) for a non-combat PC to stay outside a fight, and not be targeted. (The default framing of combat, when the party is together, is that everyone in the party is a target - 3E deals with this problem for familiars via the ad hoc expedient of giving them Improved Evasion as an ingame EX ability, rather than via the obvious metagame expedient that is required.)
There are no very adequate rules for soothing the savage breast via negotiation or song once combat is afoot - 4e comes closes to this with its skill challenge mechanics, but the interaction between these and combat resolution is one of the weaker points of that edition's action resolution rules.
I could give further reasons if you want, but the ones I've already given are pretty illustrative, I think.
Tuesday, 9th October, 2012, 11:58 AM #170
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
Take a 1st level warrior. Someone who is a town guard or something like that. And in some bar somewhere, he decides he doesn't like the face of a 4th level character, one who is "bad at combat". Who wants to bet on the paid professional to win a bar fight with a 4th level character who is "bad at combat"?